Paid vs free app strategy

[Inn0vative1]

I have a couple of paid apps on Google Play, which don't have free counterparts. I find the paid apps are not easily discovered on Google Play. I feel a free app counterpart might help increase visibility of the paid app. Based on experience of other developers, I'm wondering what the best strategy is for having a free app, with the goal of driving users to the paid version.

The options I'm thinking of are:

1. Free "trial" app: this would let the user know right away that it is only going to work for say 30 days, and give regular reminders with the time counting down. AFer the trial period, a dialog will be shown telling the user to get the paid app if they want to keep using the app.

2. Free app with limited functionality. The paid app will be a full app with many more features not available in the free version. And teasers can be shown, telling the user "If you want feature 'X' you have to get the paid version".

3. Full featured free and paid app, but free versino has ads, paid version does not.

Has anyone tried any of these strategies themselves? And which would you say is the most effective at driving free app users to the paid app?

 

[Rxpert83]

I've never released an app, but generally you don't make a lot of money on advertising in app. I'd suggest either route number 1 or route number 2


Most users want to make sure the app actually works before paying for it, so I agree a free counterpart can help. Although that IS what the refund button is for

 

[Espis]

I'm not an app developer, but when I download apps, I never download apps that are free for a limited time. I like being able to keep my apps on my phone for some time, just in case I need them.

If I were you, I'd choose number 2 or 3. Maybe number 2 would be the most successful option...

 

[bymis]

I would personally be more likely to get the app as a trial app first and then buy after.

I did that alot on the AppStore on iPhone. The other thing might be pricing points I'm not sure how the rating think works on google play but what about an arbitrary discount for upgrading free users to your full service? Not sure what pricing you are running currently so that might not be possible.

 

[aysiu]

As a consumer (not a developer), I've had the best buying experience with free trial apps that have full functionality for a limited period of time (like a week or two weeks).

Limiting functionality and then expecting people to pay for more has two major downsides: 1) if the limited functionality is too limiting, no one will want to try it for any period of time, and 2) if the limited functionality is too functional, few people will want to pay more for those extra features

Ads have a similar problem. If the ads are extremely intrusive, people will just uninstall the app straightaway. If the ads are not intrusive, people will just put up with the ads so as not to pay for the app.

Granted, there are exceptions. Some apps I've just enjoyed so much that I've bought even though the ads on the free version weren't that intrusive (e.g., WordFeud). Some apps I've bought for extra functionality but mainly to support the developer (e.g., Titanium Backup). But my best experiences have been with trial apps (e.g., PowerAmp or Tasker).

Just my own personal experiences as a consumer...

 

[electricpete]

I'm not an app developer, but when I download apps, I never download apps that are free for a limited time. I like being able to keep my apps on my phone for some time, just in case I need them.

If I were you, I'd choose number 2 or 3. Maybe number 2 would be the most successful option...

My thoughts exactly.

I hate 1. Why would I download a ticking time-bomb and put a deadline on myself to evaluate it.

2. is a win/win. Give the user 90% of the functionality and they'll be happy the free version and keep using it. IF they use it frequently, that last 10% functionality will always be in their face and sooner or later they will decide to pony up to make the App complete.... recognizing they've already gotten their money's worth even before they put the money down.

3 does not deter me as a user as long as the ads are non-intrusive. If the ads get in my way I get p*ssed and uninstall.

 

[colmmcgrath]

It depends upon the user's requirements. If it is very essential, then best option is to go for a paid one. Otherwise its better choose a free app with ads.

 

[chanchan05]

Mantano Reader has a free version with limited features AND ads. So even if the features were enough for users, they still earn.

 

[Robobob1221]

I don't particularly like trial apps. It feels like you're under pressure to make the purchase before you run out of time. Although I did purchase Power Amp, and Swiftkey usually these kind of apps I don't buy. You need an extremely good product or promotion I think in this case.
Those that offer almost full functionality, with a few restrictions I often tend to purchase as I can see more or less the full capabilities of the application and will be willing to fork out for the remaining features, even if I don't use them. Elixir is/was a good example of that.

 

[El Presidente]

Either 1 or 3 would work for me. If there's a free app which does what I want, I tend to make do with the limited functionality unless I desperately need whatever the paid version offers. There are exceptions though, if I really like what the app does, I'll often pay for it, just to support the dev.

 

[Simply Applied]

I have a couple of paid apps on Google Play, which don't have free counterparts. I find the paid apps are not easily discovered on Google Play. I feel a free app counterpart might help increase visibility of the paid app. Based on experience of other developers, I'm wondering what the best strategy is for having a free app, with the goal of driving users to the paid version.

The options I'm thinking of are:

1. Free "trial" app: this would let the user know right away that it is only going to work for say 30 days, and give regular reminders with the time counting down. AFer the trial period, a dialog will be shown telling the user to get the paid app if they want to keep using the app.

2. Free app with limited functionality. The paid app will be a full app with many more features not available in the free version. And teasers can be shown, telling the user "If you want feature 'X' you have to get the paid version".

3. Full featured free and paid app, but free versino has ads, paid version does not.

Has anyone tried any of these strategies themselves? And which would you say is the most effective at driving free app users to the paid app?

We have two apps in the Play Store currently and we are changing our approach on each.

One app is a speed dial app, Sign, which has a Lite version which has a limit of three (3) contacts you can assign to the speed dial. The full version we sell for $1.99 and it lets you assign an unlimited number of speed dials. We are going to remove the three (3) speed dial restriction on the free app and include ads (unobtrusive). We are also going to include some additional functionality to the "full" version like the ability to open other apps/shortcuts which will be indicated in the Settings screen, but unavailable to activate in the free version. The Lite version will be fully functional as a speed dial app, it just won't have the extras. I'm sure as we add features we'll incorporate some of the older "upgrade" features into the free version.

Our second app makes the phone ring even when your phone is silent when specific people call you. This allows you to turn the volume down at night but not miss important/emergency calls. The Trial version of this app allows for five (5) overrides of the volume before it asks you to upgrade to the full version which is $0.99. This way, the user can see that it works and is useful before they buy it. However, we are going to change this app as well. We are going to remove the five (5) override restriction and include ads. Similar to the speed dial app, the free version will be fully functional as a call override application. However, the pay version will have some additional features which the free version won't include. Again, we'll have these in the Settings so that the user knows they are available if they want to upgrade.

I think by having less limiting free versions we should drive more downloads. Hopefully people are happy with the app and either want to pay for the full version down the road because they want to support us or because they think the additional features are worth it. Plus, they have a chance to see that we have quality apps because they have a fully functional* free version (*fully functional as far as the primary function of the app).

Anyways, good luck! It's tough to get noticed with over 400,000 apps in the Play Store. Having an effective monetization strategy is key to being able to generate revenue and continue development.

 

[komputer]

We have two apps in the Play Store currently and we are changing our approach on each.



Having an effective monetization strategy is key to being able to generate revenue and continue development.

Have to agree with that. Good luck with your apps/ There are many peeps out there using these just be patience and usage will grow Like you said, too many apps out there. How can one decide which ones one needs compared to ones one thinks he wants.

 

[El Presidente]

I've removed some uncalled for posts, please stay on topic and attack issues, not each other.

 

[Simply Applied]

Have to agree with that. Good luck with your apps/ There are many peeps out there using these just be patience and usage will grow Like you said, too many apps out there. How can one decide which ones one needs compared to ones one thinks he wants.

On my phone, so i apologize in advance for any typos.

A few years ago, the market used to allow 24 hours for users to try out an app and get a full refund if they didn't like it.

Google changed that to 15 minutes which most developers agree is too short a period of time to determine whether an app is worth buying. To overcome the new policy and give users a better opportunity to test the app, many developers developed trial or Lite versions. This was done as a benefit to users and developers alike because if the app is good the hope is that giving the user more time to try it, the more likely they will be to buy it.

Developers spend hundreds, if not thousands of hours developing their applications. As you indicated, "How can one decide which ones one needs compared to ones one thinks he wants." That's why we created free versions, so it's risk free to test it the app to help you decide. Developers have a lot of time, energy and money invested in their app. One way that we get exposure is through positive ratings and comments. By ranking a free trial app 1 star, an app which was developed to benefit you the user, you are directly impacting our ability to get our app noticed and hopefully purchased.

Better rankings equals more downloads equals more revenue equals continued development and improvement.

We don't have a say in how Google set up its refund policy. We're just trying to do our best to get our apps out there to as many people as possible. Different developers have different ways of doing it. Blaming the developers because you don't like the model created by Google is why you've had several people respond negatively to your posts.

 

[chanchan05]

It is not my job to encourage devs to want to make apps. They do that cause they to make monies. If not that then they would make them FREE. I do not blame them. It is just my pet peeve. To each his own.

Actually, it is our job as users to rate things in the Play Market fair and squarely unlike what you are doing. If you discourage developers from making apps, not only paid apps but free apps will suffer as well. Many free apps are buoyed by their paid counterparts. Mantano Reader Free for example is an excellent app, and its being buoyed and kept alive by the earnings from Mantano Reader Pro. Making an app is time consuming and tiring. The free apps you download all provide limited functionality compared to paid apps. The developers are in the app business to earn money, not to give you what you want. Even the free apps you download earn money for the developers via ads (and they also drain your battery way faster, up to 50% faster).

 

[chanchan05]

Trial apps are there to circumvent Google idiotic 15min refund policy. While this may be ok for games, its not for Office apps, Media apps, etc. While I do agree that there are other more viable models like a limiting functionality and having ads, the act you described is an unfair one. Besides, developers usually don't read reviews. That's why there's an "email developer" button.

 

[El Presidente]

Strike 2.

The Off Topic stuff ends now. You're cool to disagree with the way people may or may not rate apps, but that's not what this thread is about, is it?

 

[breadnatty08]

Honestly, I was really bummed when Google went from 24hrs (?) to 15min to test out an app. Who can really figure out Tasker in 15min?!?
Lookout, on the other hand, has a much longer trial period which I like even though it's a bit pricey. If you're able to bake that into your app, I'd recommend that method.

 

[Hadron]

So to follow my own advice, with the caveat that I've never tried to sell an app in the market so don't have direct experience of the commercial pros and cons, here are my feelings as a user.

As you'll have gathered I'm perfectly happy with time-limited trial versions.

Function limited "lite" versions can work, but it's a tricky balance between limiting the function too much and just annoying people, and giving so much that people just stick with it. Probably easier with some types of apps than others. Reminders of missing functions are also a balancing act - you don't want people to forget, but if they are too frequent/get in the way they can turn people off instead.

I actually dislike ads, but many more people will tolerate them happily if they don't have to pay. So for option 3 I'd guess that you have to consider whether it makes sense for you if a very large fraction of your user base opt to stay with the ad supported version. The model of providing some extra functionality in the paid version seems sensible in this respect.

Good luck!

 

[Simply Applied]

So to follow my own advice, with the caveat that I've never tried to sell an app in the market so don't have direct experience of the commercial pros and cons, here are my feelings as a user.

As you'll have gathered I'm perfectly happy with time-limited trial versions.

Function limited "lite" versions can work, but it's a tricky balance between limiting the function too much and just annoying people, and giving so much that people just stick with it. Probably easier with some types of apps than others. Reminders of missing functions are also a balancing act - you don't want people to forget, but if they are too frequent/get in the way they can turn people off instead.

I actually dislike ads, but many more people will tolerate them happily if they don't have to pay. So for option 3 I'd guess that you have to consider whether it makes sense for you if a very large fraction of your user base opt to stay with the ad supported version. The model of providing some extra functionality in the paid version seems sensible in this respect.

Good luck!

For developers its a difficult balance to achieve. Just from this thread its obvious that everyone has a different idea about what they like/don't like with respect to free/trial/ad-supported apps. We have to make a decision as to what is best way to get exposure for our apps and there just isn't a way to do it without some people being upset.

I think our original ideas for a restricted version of our speed dial while maintaining the full amount of functionality was good. However, it just didn't work out the way we anticipated, so we're looking to change our model. It may or may not work, but it seems the apps which are most successful generate a huge amount of users by providing a freemium version which is extremely functional as-is and doesn't have an expiration. Then they use ads and upgrade options to generate revenue from people who either want to get rid of the ads or want the added features. The key though, is to really get a large user base for your free version.

On our second app, it was a Trial version, but there was no time limit. It was based on the number of times the app actually functioned as intended. Our hope was that after seeing that it worked several times, they would see it as a useful app that they would be willing to purchase. We'll see how changing the model works as far as increasing downloads and overall interest in the app.

The comments here have been really good for us to see what people like/don't like regarding free versions. The way the Play Store is structured with such a short time limit for refunds really puts the emphasis on having an effective free version to generate a lot of interest in the app. Google has not promoted a culture of purchasing apps like Apple has done. Android users are much more inclined to download and use free versions than to get the pay version. There's a lot of factors for that, but it is definitely a challenge that developers face.

 

[Rachel A]

I'm somewhat flexible on this myself.

Apps that start off free then start adding versions to a pro edition are fine for me, as are time limited trial ware. I'll even take some limitation based apps from time to time. I've purchased full editions of all the above in the last couple of years.

The only model I despise is paid for apps with in app purchasing. Oh, and anything that even thinks about looking in the direction of AirPush or its mutated derivatives...

 

[appsandmore]

I've been talking to several app developers as well as to a couple of friends in the ad networks and here's a summary of what I've been able to gather:
1. Click through rates are horrible. We all know that...
2.There's way too much inventory (i.e. impressions) but the biggest problem with this inventory is that it is essentially blind i.e. the ad calls contains no demographic or psychographic info. Advertisers have been trained to buy impressions which contain age and gender (at the very least) - more would be great.
3. Since none of the impressions carry that info, advertisers are not willing to bid much or anything at all for an impression.. hence the pathetic income streams we all receive.
4. Developers are expected to figure out the user's demographics and send it back with the ad SDK's call - how the heck do we do that dynamically?
5. Hence ads are essentially random and scattershot - result - no clicks i.e. no money.

That's my $0.02..

I know a company in the current YC batch (mthsense) that's working on solving the problem - (full disclosure - i know the founders - even suggested the name for their company). The "th" is a superscript - what can i say, never said I was a marketing genius..

 

[aysiu]

Honestly, I think there has to be a cultural shift.

When my wife got her first iPhone back in 2008, she was immediately buying apps. Why? Because it was expected that iPhone apps cost money and because she already had an iTunes account set up and linked to a credit card.

When I got my first Android phone back in 2009, I was immediately installing only free apps. I have to confess I didn't buy a single app until the end of 2011... so less than a year ago. This sounds really stupid, but it wasn't until Google launched its $.10 app per day promotion that I linked up a credit card to my Google Play (then Android Market) account and actually started considering buying stuff... and then buying stuff. There is also this psychological barrier that a lot of Android users have. I tried to convince a co-worker to buy Tasker, and he saw the price and was hesitant. When I finally did convince him to buy it, he loved that app! And he justified it after the fact as not that much money (two cups of coffee).

Apple was smart to get people to set up Apple ID accounts with iTunes and credit cards.

 

[Simply Applied]

I'm somewhat flexible on this myself.

Apps that start off free then start adding versions to a pro edition are fine for me, as are time limited trial ware. I'll even take some limitation based apps from time to time. I've purchased full editions of all the above in the last couple of years.

The only model I despise is paid for apps with in app purchasing. Oh, and anything that even thinks about looking in the direction of AirPush or its mutated derivatives...

There's no way for developers to make everyone happy, so most try to choose the method that makes the most sense for the type of app they have. An app that isn't accessed very often isn't going to be able to make much money on ad impressions, so a trial version which expires may make more sense.

I think users need to have an attitude similar to yours and realize that it isn't that they are trying to come up with a system to upset the user, they are trying to find a good balance between user satisfaction and revenue generation. In-App Purchases are fine as long as the basic functionality of the app is available without having to pay - if the app is unusable without the upgrade, then its kind of false advertising as far as I'm concerned.

I've been talking to several app developers as well as to a couple of friends in the ad networks and here's a summary of what I've been able to gather:
1. Click through rates are horrible. We all know that...
2.There's way too much inventory (i.e. impressions) but the biggest problem with this inventory is that it is essentially blind i.e. the ad calls contains no demographic or psychographic info. Advertisers have been trained to buy impressions which contain age and gender (at the very least) - more would be great.
3. Since none of the impressions carry that info, advertisers are not willing to bid much or anything at all for an impression.. hence the pathetic income streams we all receive.
4. Developers are expected to figure out the user's demographics and send it back with the ad SDK's call - how the heck do we do that dynamically?
5. Hence ads are essentially random and scattershot - result - no clicks i.e. no money.

That's my $0.02..

I know a company in the current YC batch (mthsense) that's working on solving the problem - (full disclosure - i know the founders - even suggested the name for their company). The "th" is a superscript - what can i say, never said I was a marketing genius..

Ads definitely don't generate much and that's why you continue to see more and more aggressive advertising techniques. Additionally, if an app gathers too much information about a users demographics, there's a lot of pushback on that as well. It's a tough balance to strike, no doubt.

Honestly, I think there has to be a cultural shift.

When my wife got her first iPhone back in 2008, she was immediately buying apps. Why? Because it was expected that iPhone apps cost money and because she already had an iTunes account set up and linked to a credit card.

When I got my first Android phone back in 2009, I was immediately installing only free apps. I have to confess I didn't buy a single app until the end of 2011... so less than a year ago. This sounds really stupid, but it wasn't until Google launched its $.10 app per day promotion that I linked up a credit card to my Google Play (then Android Market) account and actually started considering buying stuff... and then buying stuff. There is also this psychological barrier that a lot of Android users have. I tried to convince a co-worker to buy Tasker, and he saw the price and was hesitant. When I finally did convince him to buy it, he loved that app! And he justified it after the fact as not that much money (two cups of coffee).

Apple was smart to get people to set up Apple ID accounts with iTunes and credit cards.

Apple has always emphasized buying apps because it is a significant source of income for them. Between that, the demographics of iPhone users being more likely to pay for apps (there's a variety of reasons for this), and Apple always requiring a credit card on file to access iTunes, it has cultivated a culture of payment.

Android has never had that and until recently, Google hasn't really attempted to establish this sort of culture. It's really against their nature since their business model is to provide their services for free. I think now that Google has a vested interest in getting people to pay for things within their content ecosystem (see Music/Movies/Books/etc.) you'll see them begin to push that culture.

Developers will benefit as a result, but its going to take a while. Unfortunately for developers, there are some growing pains in trying to figure out the most effective strategies for releasing free apps which still generate revenue.

 

[AndroidMan1]

As a developer, I have done idea 2 on one of my apps (MegaAudio) and it was successful with a Lite version that has plenty to offer yet with some slight limitations on some section of the app. With no ads on the Lite version the only money made is from the paid version. While the paid version only makes